About ending stipends....

So, lets just stipulate that stipends are the reason the value of the $L is so low and inflation is rising and all you land barons/creators and the like who have oogobs of $L to sell and don't like not getting top dollar are bitching. Frankly I don't think its the case but i'll stipulate it in order to have this discussion.

So now you have oogobs of $L. And you can't get top dollar. And you are unhappy. So LL bows to your demands and removes stipends. What are you planning to do? Cash out and leave? What is you expect people to do for cash to buy your stuff?

I'm just curious about your logic here because this whole stipend thing makes no sense to me and your position makes no sense to me.

Maybe I'm not the right person to answer, being neither a Land Baron nor a content creator, but...

How about they BUY their L$ on Lindex? Too simple?

Buy L$ with dollars from people with L$! Because clearly there wouldn't be any exchange rate decrease then, would there?

You're missing the central thrust of the argument, which is

* stipends are welfare
* welfare is bad, von Mises said so
* therefore stipends are bad

Except stipends are not welfare, as they are contractually provided as part of the signup deal.

I bet that not one of the 'anti stipend' whiners here complains about getting their money every week (especially the 'free money' of basic accounts) - because if they are so against them, I would be glad to accept that money from you and free your conscience.

Lewis

well yeah that could happen. But what makes you think it will?

I mean, I'm sure there's a fair amount of people who will buy LindenX and probably already do. I know I do. Not all of that goes to buy goods though. Some of it goes to support a private club -- sometimes I give some to friends who have fallen on hard times and they convert it to cash.. it certainly doesn't all go to goods and services.

You are making a big asumption here. Lots of money enters the economy in the form of stipends. You assume, perhaps rightly and perhaps not, that if this money supply were stopped, people would then be forced to buy from LindenX, thereby recirculating the money you make. If they buy from LindenX -- a huge assumption -- then their shopping habits and land use habits will remain static -- another huge assumption.

Furthermore, for those that do not own land and simply have a premium acct in order to get the stipend, they might very well scale back. Why bother if there's no stipend. Then that 10 bucks a month might be used at LindenX for $L. But why would LL take money out of their pockets just so you can make more on your $L? This makes no sense.

Sorry I do not understand your logic at all.

There are a very small minority screaming to end stipends. I'm not sure why anyone's particularly worried about it.

Personally, I get the idea that the market should stabilize in the vicinity of 350L$ to the USD.

My reasoning is: This makes the LindeX a bit more attractive than buying new L$ with a year's subscription. For those interested in only the stipend part of the premium account this would be a better option - which would also allow them to increase or decrease thier spending on SL as suited thier needs or caprice.

Then to further the model, I'd duggest the tier system start at $5 per 512 parcel, and move to $200 for a full sim, with a far finer-grained set of steps, with a nonlinear "discount" tier (that is, unlike now, each tier actually has several buying amounts.) this would be to maximize our ability to fine tune our land holdings and maximize profits to LL for land holding.

Then we start to mess with stipends. Carefully balancing them against the economy's sinks. If all goes well, all the "new" money will come from the pocket money given new residents and the referral bonuses, and no one will notice the lack of stipends. Other new moneys can come from LL selling L$ directly, if and only if the pool needs new money to maintain the LindeX rate so that it's more attractive than the current premium stipend (which is pretty much the only way this would work).

The idea here is to keep everyone fully empowered to make thier choice on how to "play" SL. From the folks who are here just to socialise and will spend little or no money on it, to the folks making a small business on SL's platform, to land and market speculators - there's plenty of room for the lot.

There are a number of factors that anti-stipends camp posts have not addressed. I'd like to hear some constructive answers.

FACT: Linden Labs wants to promote SL. They want wider acceptance.

Most MMOGs I know have an account base many times larger than the 120,000 that LL has posted. In fact one I know hosted in my country had at one point 2 million created accounts (some people hold many accounts, there were also many many trial accounts), and based on server figures when I log in can have nearly 50,000 concurrent players. This game is pay to play. If they made it free then even more people would be playing it.

SL from the beginning provided free for life basic accounts and now even removed the barrier to that by making even the account creation free. Even with all of that the number still hovers at 4000 concurrent. So despite the low barrier to entry (the PC being a barrier in itself) SL has a tiny population.

If they cut the stipend on the basic accounts then they will be increasing that barrier to entry again. I won't have a problem because maybe I'll have a little business going. But the great majority out there don't know how to build or script, and they derive enjoyment from buying things ... with their stipends. If stipends were removed LL loses those customers and the businesses in-game will lose them too. If you were a basic account holder that just wants casual, low-stress play, and were not a builder/scripter yourself ... would you stay if you had no money to spend? Some would say yes and just buy L$ on the Lindex. A large number will just silently leave.

A domino effect ensues and this will largely kill the businesses that are already struggling as is with an economy that does not have real consumption (except events, lectures, and rent).

The question that no anti-stipend person has addressed, and I do really want to hear a constructive, well thought-out answer is:

What can you propose to Linden Labs to do so that they can attract these casual type players from whom a lot of puchasing currently takes place via stipends?

No matter how I look at it, it returns to stipends! In an economy like SL's that has no consumption, you can't get repeat customers. No one buys the same object twice unless it's been lost. There are no repeat sales. The only real place sustainable money comes from is new customers!

The casual account I'd say is the single biggest source of income for the retail industry inside SL.

I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO REPLY TO THIS POST THAT I DON'T WANT TO HEAR A REASON TO END THE STIPEND. WE'VE HEARD THEM ALL. WHAT I WANT TO SEE IS WHAT YOU'D REPLACE IT WITH TO ATTRACT NEW CUSTOMERS.

The stipend as it stands doesn't really look nice from a financial standpoint because people get them for just being around. However, whatever we'd replace the stipend with should not destroy what the stipend was meant to do which is retain the casual residents.

I have not fully studied Jillian's proposal above but in terms of how to present an idea, THAT'S the way ideas need to be presented.

Aodhan you are guilty of the same thing the end-stipend people are -- making a huge bunch of assumptions. You assume, perhaps rightly and perhaps not, that people will leave if stipends are ended. You assume LL wants US as its wider audience -- I'm not so sure thats the case. Were I LL I'd be developing this platform for business and universities to use as a modelling, training and meeting facility. They'll be able to charge way more and won't have to do MMOG facilitation which is costly and ineffective in the long term. LL has 225K posted btw and not 120. SL may have a tiny population but don't assume LL wants to grow that. Near as I can tell they don't have the infrastructure to support large growth. Barriers to entry might be a good thing. Why would you want someone here who continually maintained a free account and never bought lindens, land or any other thing. Frankly if I were LL I'd make accounts free for the first 6 months and then charge.

I'm not saying you are wrong -- I'm saying WE DON'T KNOW. Neither do those who think stipends are flooding the economy, driving inflation and making it more difficult for them to make a buck. They are just grasping at anything as they see their profits going down. I don't see similar grasping in order to fight their noise as useful.

So in other words, what you are saying is ...

..."Even though I'm playing for free, you will either pay me my $L50, or otherwise give me something for free, or BYE BYE! SL is not worth it unless you give me something for free...

... even though I am playing for free to begin with."

Is that it?

@Vivienne

Thanks for the correction of 225k. Still small of course, I just lifted the 120k figure from another recent post.

Very true there's a lot we don't know. But the way LL has presented SL we can't assume that they're not going after some wider base. Removing the $10 entry does signal something.

I'm not saying all people will leave if stipends were ended. But fact is that a number already signalled they will if so. Also, no matter how it's shaken, if a casual player has no stipend he has these choices:

Buy L$ and stay
Stay and try to earn L$ in-world
Just stay
Leave

Certainly the ability to buy things is a bit of a draw in SL, as it would be in RL if you had money. Absence of the stipend will not mean all casuals will leave, but a good number will stay, a good number will go. Absence of the stipend is not a guarantee people will go, definitely not, but it certainly will apply some force on the society.

@Cheyenne
Nope, that's not what I said. Far from it.

Game or "Platform", LL has to put the money where their mouth is.

If it is the "platform" they keep selling through press releases, ads and magazine interviews, they need to exercise sound financial policies to make $L a reliable currency, where resident can have some confidence that the $L they hold is not going to be worthless tomorrow.

The way LL is handing out stipend right now is adding significant influx to the money supply, regardless if the economy needs it or not.

The current rate of money supply increase is ~60million a month, the money supply will double in 11 months. is SL economy really growing that fast that need an increase in money supply that much? Can some economist give us some number on economic growth vs money supply?

I've already mentioned in another thread that Stipend can stay, but LL should treat them as limit buy order and first buy from Lindex. If the $L value is getting too hot and is affecting the economic growth then should LL print additional $L.

I would suggest that LL make a kick ass game (platform / whatever) , make it absolutely free to use, and facilitate the sale of game currency ($L) for real money.

Oh wait, they have already done that.

Since the population is growing faster than the money supply, I would say "yes". When population growth slows down, then is the time to start looking at cutting stipends.

Before I consider that question motivate me. Why do I want to attract customers who want something from me but don't want to pay for it?

Because some of them can be eventually brought to the point where they will want to pay for it. Those people definitely exist.

Another reason you can see in my original post. These "freeloaders" as some may want to call them have L$ on them. They buy little things. But being a large population those little purchases add up.

Increases in retail in a world where things aren't consumed helps industry. As I said in another thread, we can't use real world economics here because there is no consumption.

Good business in turn will lead to a better image of SL and in turn can attract more new people, paying and "freeloading" alike.

If done properly, it's a postive spiral, and it's good for all residents, good for businesses in-world, and it's good for LL.

You've just described 95% of customers. Anybody will jump at a chance to get something for nothing.

Just sayin

Are the converts a high enough percentage to be worth targetting incentives specifically to all freeloaders?



0 * 3000000000 = 0 Doesn't matter how much or how often someone spends Lindens if they never buy any they add no value to the system.



There is consumption just no destruction of goods. If you think goods aren't consumed go to a clothing store or hair shop pick a few girls and ask them how many hairs shoes outfits ect they have and how many they can't remember when they last wore.



True but that doesn't mean it's good business or wise use of incentives to target them at the freeloader population. That's like saying if you end camping chairs what can be done to draw non-gamblers into a casino. Every incentive program catches it's strays that doesn't mean that if you end an incentive program you need to find a way to keep drawing the people that were never the target of the incentive.

Indeed would the phrasing "but are unwilling to pay for it" make you happier?

I would not buy your product if I thought it was overpriced.

Same holds true for real life unless you're utterly stinking rich and don't care.

I'm not saying I like to get things for free, however, with the way prices are now, you're very much contributing to the downfall of the economy because people are simply UNWILLING to pay these high amounts. Me especially. Unless I felt it was something extraordinary. I'll look another way.

Thanks!

Only Linden Labs knows the figure. From what I see, the increase in owned (not rented) land is proof enough that the premium population is increasing.



You are counting US$ not L$, and overlooking cash out. The large mass of basic accounts receive stipend and this stipend flows towards retailers. Retailers gain income that they can use to do other things in-world or they can cash out. Check other threads and you'll find that a portion of cash out goes to Linden Labs. When someone cashes out the US$ comes from another resident. In a many cases the cash is used to pay tier. Tier goes direct to LL.

Furthermore if business is good, it will attract more residents and in turn more premium accouints.



There are two kinds of sales. Sales of new object and repeat sales of same object. The latter is what I refer to as consumption (e.g. food, gasoline). Its absence dictates that sales can only come from either new objects (which you describe above) or new customers (new residents).

The consumed commodity in SL is creativity, not the object. That is, to get a "repeat sale" one has to create a new item.



Given what I've seen so far with regard to what Linden Labs is doing and how everyone is talking on the forums, particularly the retailers who know where their income is coming from, the stipends still make sense.

Furthermore, as Cocoanut Cookie pointed out in another thread there are many people who may be described by some as "freeloaders" who make the SL experience all the more richer not by scripts or builds but by their mere presence. After all, the great experiences in SL come not only from objects and businesses. There are good relationships. To these L$ value cannot be placed but they still add to the overal experience of the world.